Memecoin vertical — top meme tokens by volume with momentum, or a per-token degen risk read (liquidity, rug flags, social velocity). $0.05 USDC. Payment is consumed on execution, including timeouts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain filter (solana, base, ethereum). Default: solana | |
| symbol | No | Memecoin symbol (e.g., WIF). Omit for a market-wide meme screener | |
| address | No | Token contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a $0.05 USDC payment is consumed on execution (including timeouts), which is critical behavioral info. It also hints at checks (liquidity, rug flags, social velocity), though it could further detail what exactly happens (e.g., data sources, rate limits).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the first sentence conveying the core purpose and the second disclosing payment and timeout behavior. Every word is purposeful, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the functionality and payment, but does not specify the output format or how results are structured (e.g., keys, metrics). For a tool with no output schema, additional detail on return values would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new info about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (chain, symbol, address). The phrase 'per-token degen risk read' implies using symbol or address, but this is not explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it covers 'top meme tokens by volume with momentum' or a 'per-token degen risk read.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alpha_token (general token info) and alpha_trending (trending tokens). However, the verb is implied rather than explicit, missing a 'get' or 'return' statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines two use cases (market-wide screener and per-token risk read) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like alpha_token or alpha_onchain. No exclusion criteria or context for sibling comparison is given, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of crypto alpha research (e.g., brief, calendar, compare, deep, macro, memecoin, narrative, news, onchain, perps_funding, portfolio, prediction, risk, search, sentiment, stats, subscribe, token, trending). Descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, minimizing ambiguity.
All tool names follow a uniform 'alpha_{descriptive_noun}' pattern with snake_case, making naming predictable and easy to navigate.
With 19 tools spanning a broad range of crypto intelligence (market data, sentiment, on-chain, risk, portfolio, news, etc.), the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose—neither too few nor excessive.
The tool set covers most key areas of crypto research (price, sentiment, on-chain, risk, news, calendar, narratives, portfolio, predictions, subscriptions). Minor gaps like a dedicated volume/anomaly tool are absent, but the set is largely comprehensive.